HKSAR v. Li Wing Ho

HCCC 164/2024

[2025] HKCFI 1658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 164 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

______________________________________

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

______________________________________

COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of indecent assault and one count of homosexual buggery with a man under the age of 16, contrary to section 122(1)  and 118C(a)  of the Crimes Ordinance respectively. He is committed to this court for sentence.

The victim (X)  was born on December 2009. On 17 July 2022, X complained to his auntie that he had been sexually abused. Later, he told the auntie that he had been taken to a hotel in Yau Ma Tei on 3 July 2022 by a man (“the defendant”). The man then had buggery with him without a condom and ejaculated in his anus.

It seems clear after considering the psychiatric report and the Summary of Facts that the defendant was looking for a young boy to satisfy his sexual gratification.

On the last occasion, his sentence was adjourned so that a psychiatrist report could be obtained. I had the benefit of reading the report. The defendant told the psychiatrist that it was essentially the victim who played the active role in this case and that he was no more than complying with the victim’s request. His version of events to the psychiatrist was contrary to the Summary of Facts admitted.

Further, I note that the victim was only 12 at the time. As such, this court rejects that view, the view that the defendant was no more than complying with X’s request. It seems clear to this court that the defendant was simply shifting the blame onto the victim and demonstrated little remorse despite what is asserted in his mitigation letter.

(Discussion re mitigation letter)

Although the psychiatrist, Dr Liu, could not establish a formal diagnosis of the defendant having sexual deviating behaviour, she was of the view that the defendant had high paedophilic tendency. Judging from what the defendant had told the psychiatrist, which I find to be anything but the truth, it seems highly likely that the likelihood of the defendant committing further similar offences could not be ruled out. This was not only my view, but the reservation stated by the psychiatrist.

The 2^nd count is the more serious one. In sentencing the defendant, this court has in mind the young age of the victim, the non-use of condom which might also expose the victim to a higher risk of contracting sexually transmitted disease. As mentioned in the case of HKSAR v Chow Yuen Fai, CACC 392/2008, the non-use of a condom was a particularly serious aggravating feature.

In this case, the victim was only 12, very young, and was going through puberty. Trauma, distress, and psychological adverse effect caused to the boy was not significant. However, the worry caused to the family, ie the auntie and the father, could not be ignored.

As mentioned above, the risk of reoffending could also not be excluded. Further from the Summary of Facts, it reveals the fact that the victim came to know the defendant on social media in June or prior to June. He addressed the defendant as brother.

(Discussion re clarification)

They first played video games and had breakfast in June. Right, in short, in other words, the victim treated the defendant as a close friend. So in that sense, the present case involves a breach of trust. Given all the above, a starting point of 7 years will be adopted.

The defendant will be given the usual one-third discount for his plea. As such, for Count 2 the sentence is reduced to one of 56 months’ imprisonment.

For Count 1, similarly given the abuse of trust and the victim’s young age, the starting point will be set at 36 months’ imprisonment, 3 years’ imprisonment. After plea, the sentence is reduced to one of 24 months’ imprisonment.

Given the overall criminality of the case, 12 months of Count 1 is ordered to serve consecutively to Count 2. For the two offences that the defendant stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 68 months’ imprisonment.